The power that ‘trumps’ Donald
25 January 2020
Errol Amerasekera
Wanna-blow-my-top angry. Jaw-droppingly shocked. Eye-rolling with disbelief. These are just some of my reactions at seeing the latest inane thing that President Donald Trump has done or said. With all the crazy going ons in US politics at the moment, we often hear him referred to as “the most powerful man in the world”. After my initial reaction abates, I am left to ponder what does referring to Donald Trump in this manner mean in terms of how we think about power, particularly within the context of leadership?
There are different kinds of power
What makes power complex and challenging to explore is that there are numerous elements which contribute to an individual’s overall power. Dr Julie Diamond, author of Power: A User’s Guide, simplifies this process by clarifying the different kinds of power which contribute to an individual’s ‘power profile’. For example:
- Positional power – the power vested in an individual by virtue of their role or position.
- Social power – which is the power of one’s social status and the privileges related to social identity eg age, gender, sexuality, race, education, socio-economic status, religion etc.
- Personal power – the power that comes from one’s ability to influence and be persuasive. Also the degree of emotional intelligence, psychological insight and sense of purpose and belonging possessed by an individual.
- Physical power – which is the power that comes from strength, presence, physical stature and appearance.
- Expertise power – is the power related to one’s knowledge or experience in a particular area.
The most relevant of these within the context of leadership are positional power and personal power. Dr Diamond further elaborates on the key differences between these two kinds of power. Positional power is simply the power that is vested in an individual based on the authority related to their particular role and the context in which that role exists. Positional power is therefore based on an external framework. A CEO of an organisation, a General in the army and the captain of a sporting team are all examples of high positional power. Positional power cannot be changed, developed or adapted without changing role, as it is the power related to that particular role. Additionally, positional power is context specific, as it is only valid when an individual is occupying a role within a certain context. For example, a CEO may wield a lot of power within their organisation, but when they go home and try to convince their six-year-old to go to bed, they realise that while they may have dozens of employees who will follow their directives without question, the positional power from their workplace has very little sway with their six-year-old.
Personal power, on the other hand, pertains to attributes that are within us, so it is located internally. It relates to an individual’s powers of persuasion; how they influence; and their social skills. It is their ability to build effective, harmonious and functional relationships. Someone’s sense of purpose and belonging, and how they find meaning in their life, particularly in challenging times, are also aspects of personal power.
Personal power is separate to people’s professional role, and not determined by the context they are operating in; it is therefore transferable across roles, contexts and circumstances. So, that same CEO has a better chance of convincing their six-year-old to go to bed by using their personal power i.e. their ability to influence, persuade and build effective relationships, rather than clumsily wielding the positional power derived from their CEO role. Importantly, because personal power resides internally and is founded on personal attributes, it can be developed, adapted and coached.
Personal power enhances leadership effectiveness by legitimising positional power
Personal power enables leaders to demonstrate behaviours which enhance their effectiveness and support them in building high-performing cultures. There are many of these behaviours and attributes, here are three which come to mind immediately.
Firstly, personal power strengthens a leader’s psychological resilience and fortifies their sense of self. This in turn supports their capacity for honest self-reflection; critically analysing their own behaviour; and being open to receiving feedback, even if it is ‘constructive’.
The ability and willingness to self-reflect and critically analyse one’s behaviour is crucial given that the organisations that survive, indeed thrive into the future will require leadership that is able to manage the complexity of competing demands, learn fast and rapidly adapt to an ever changing environment. Additionally, this self-reflective capacity permits leaders to examine their behaviours to ensure that they are aligned with a clear and consistent ethical framework.
Secondly, personal power enables people to take responsibility, especially when things don’t go as planned. A “buck stops at me” mentality is almost impossible to cultivate when leaders are not conscious of their power and use it effectively and ethically.
Thirdly, personal power enables leaders to share the praise and recognition for successes. Lao Tsu said: When the best leader’s work is done, the people say: “We did it ourselves!”. This kind of generosity of spirit requires a leader to have a robust sense of self and an internal ‘power bank’ that is relatively full. Without these, their personal need to feel powerful and validated will make them less inclined to freely share the power that comes from success, praise and recognition.
We need a more holistic approach to how we view power
So if we examine Trump’s leadership against these three basic criteria, we will see that he rarely demonstrates the above traits. He shows very little capacity to self-reflect, and examine his behaviours through an ethical framework. He seldom, if ever, takes responsibility for his actions and almost always justifies himself or “throws someone else under the bus” when things don’t go as planned. And he is very quick to accept praise (even if the one providing the praise is himself), yet he is miserly in terms of giving genuine praise to others. If you read my last post, “Okay okay – enough of the leadership bashing” you will recall that I believe that from a psychological perspective, there are good reasons why Trump behaves this way, and therefore he is deserving of as much care and empathy as anyone else (although I must admit, he makes it very challenging for me to consistently see him in an empathetic light)
This then engenders two questions.
The first question is:
Is Donald Trump really the most powerful man in the world?
If we examine his power from purely a positional standpoint, then clearly based on his role, and the power which goes along with being President of the United States, he is indeed a very powerful man. What is clear however, is that when we distil power in a general sense down to just personal power, and examine Trump’s behaviours through this lens, he is actually not very powerful at all.
A leader’s use of their personal power is a key determinant of their effectiveness because, as Dr Diamond comments, when positional power is not validated and “legitimised” by personal power, it can be experienced as tyrannical, even dictatorial. Given this, you can make your own mind up about what this means about the effectiveness of Trump’s leadership, but I suspect you will have a pretty good sense of where I stand.
What is more relevant (and potentially much more useful), is reflecting on what does this mean about the effectiveness of your own leadership? Do you rely heavily on your positional power in the way that you take up your leadership role? Or do you legitimise the positional power that you have through the effective use of your personal power? And finally, what is the value that you place on the development of your own personal power – and not just in principle, but also in the way that you prioritise your energy and time in support of its development?
The second question, and one that is perhaps more challenging, is:
When we hear Trump referred to as “the most powerful man in the world”, what does this suggest about the way that we as a culture view power?
The ongoing reference to Trump in this way would suggest that as a culture we believe the most important determinant of overall power is positional power. In fact, one could argue that other types of power (for example those described by Dr Julie Diamond and listed above) are barely ‘on the radar’ when it comes to how we measure and value power. Perhaps because positional power feels more tangible, more measurable, it is easy for people to be seduced down a pathway where they continually seek roles, status and the external elements which affirm this kind of power.
But…
What if we start to think about power, particularly within the context of leadership, in a more holistic way – one which acknowledges the reality of positional power, but also places more of a value on personal power? What would this mean in terms of how we invest the finite amount of energy, time and resources that we have as organisations, in order to best develop leadership effectiveness?
Unhealthy use of power = an unhealthy culture
Given the culture’s general tendency to overvalue positional power, potentially at the expense of personal power, it is easy for this mindset to then flow into the way that organisations and their leaders view power. As a result, if leaders rely too heavily on their positional power and don’t validate it with personal power, they can be experienced as hard to relate to, aloof, or even slightly tyrannical. The challenge here is that because of their position (and power) within the organisation, people are less likely to give them direct feedback. However, we often observe the consequences of this poor use of power in subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, dynamics within the culture. These include:
- Passive-aggressive behaviour – because people don’t feel safe or permitted to express their power and authority directly.
- Internal and unhealthy competitiveness or territorialism – when leaders are not “generous” with their power, staff tend to compete internally. This is similar to how children in an environment where love is not freely given, will compete for their parent’s attention and validation.
- High levels of burnout and staff turnover – it takes a lot of energy for people to keep turning up to work and functioning at a high level when they feel (positional) power is used over them and/or they don’t feel permitted to have and express their own power. Because energy within a system is finite, this demand on individual and collective energy is a significant contributor to burnout and staff turnover.
I am not saying that a poor use of power and/or a leader’s underdeveloped personal power are the only reasons the above cultural dynamics emerge; if only things were that simple. However, the effectiveness and the “legitimacy” with which leaders use their power is one of many significant elements which determine an organisation’s culture.
Personal power does not come easy
If we look at some of the iconic leaders from politics, business and culture – the Dalai Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi, Nelson Mandela, John F. Kennedy, Michelle Obama, Bono, Warren Buffett and Martin Luther King Jr., no doubt, they all have significant positional power and are exceptionally skilled in their respective field (expertise power). But what makes them iconic, influential and revered is their personal power. What makes them great leaders, as opposed to good leaders, is that they legitimise their positional power by the way that they apply and use their personal power.
Stepping out of the complacency (and comfort) of positional power and dedicating one’s resources to developing personal power is no mean feat. Much like a strengthening a muscle, personal power comes at a price, most commonly, the price of being comfortable. In the list of iconic leaders above, you will see that many of them, if not all them, did not stumble across their personal power by accident, but rather, their personal power was forged in the fire of hardship, challenge, introspection and deep reflection. But as I so often say, this is the real work of leadership, and probably why good leaders are plentiful, but great leaders are rare.